Why are we gatekeeping the word job? all a job is “a task or piece of work, especially one that is paid” that seems to fit the definition of a homeowner renting out their property.
You’re just not getting like, a basic political economy concept.
Regardless of whether the investor also does the job of maintaining the property, the property they invested in is an investment. Investments always require some sort of work on someone’s part.
Also you were the one gatekeeping the word investment
Something can be both an investment and a job. If you found a startup, for instance. I just don’t get the meaningless arguments about how maintaining a property isn’t a job. If it requires you to work, then it’s a job.
Oh, looking back you were objecting to “being a landlord isn’t a job it is an investment”
We’ve had a semantic misunderstanding. I think what the op was trying to say is that being a landlord is a property relation, and you were saying “but if can also be a job” and if you want to analyze social relations I’d argue that it’d be confusing to call maintaining property as being a landlord. You could say that some land managers are also landlords, or that some landlords are also land managers?
Why are we gatekeeping the word job? all a job is “a task or piece of work, especially one that is paid” that seems to fit the definition of a homeowner renting out their property.
You’re just not getting like, a basic political economy concept.
Regardless of whether the investor also does the job of maintaining the property, the property they invested in is an investment. Investments always require some sort of work on someone’s part.
Also you were the one gatekeeping the word investment
Something can be both an investment and a job. If you found a startup, for instance. I just don’t get the meaningless arguments about how maintaining a property isn’t a job. If it requires you to work, then it’s a job.
Something can be both an investment and a job. I do not know why you were saying “it is a job not an investment” originally.
where did I say that
Oh, looking back you were objecting to “being a landlord isn’t a job it is an investment”
We’ve had a semantic misunderstanding. I think what the op was trying to say is that being a landlord is a property relation, and you were saying “but if can also be a job” and if you want to analyze social relations I’d argue that it’d be confusing to call maintaining property as being a landlord. You could say that some land managers are also landlords, or that some landlords are also land managers?